Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:23, 27 March 2007 editAthaenara (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 edits →{{subst:Coiwatch|Maharishi Mahesh Yogi}}: To Dseer: Could you please make clear what you quoted from someone else's posts and what you yourself posted? Thank you.← Previous edit Revision as of 15:53, 27 March 2007 edit undoTempshill (talk | contribs)9,225 editsm →[] {{coi-links|Adam Jones (political scientist)}}: delete itNext edit →
Line 29: Line 29:
:* ] :* ]
:* ] (current). ] ] 09:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC) :* ] (current). ] ] 09:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't this article been nominated for deletion? It's a vanity page. ] 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


==] {{coi-links|Lennie Lee}}== ==] {{coi-links|Lennie Lee}}==

Revision as of 15:53, 27 March 2007

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Gráinne de Búrca Talk:Cannabis in Germany Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Covivio Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Ughelli Power Plant Talk:University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

    Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2025-01-02 20:26 (UTC)

    Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.


    Adam Jones (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm fairly sure the single purpose editor Adam63 (talk · contribs) is the subject. I don't know enough about the subject to really check it someone else might want to go through and see if its okay.--Crossmr Iamunknown 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And even though I directed the editor to the conflict of interest page he's continued to edit the article. Its clearly a single purpose account solely used for editing that article and the related article of gendercide, which points to a very high probability of it being the subject.--Crossmr 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    As Crossmr noted, Adam63 (talk · contribs) registered to write the article about himself. The result is a hybrid of a résumé and a faculty page. {{COI}} applies but is too oblique and stresses notability rather than auto-authorship. I've tagged it {{Like-resume}} for now. — Athænara ✉ Adam Jones, Ph.D.

  • Adam Jones (Canadian scholar)
  • Adam Jones (Political scientist)
  • Adam Jones (political scientist) (current). — Æ. ✉ 09:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Why hasn't this article been nominated for deletion? It's a vanity page. Tempshill Lennie Lee (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Lennie Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a South African artist, is openly autobiographical. I have run into it accidentally while doing disambiguation and do not have the time right now to check it for notability and verifiability. Sam Blacketer 12:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Searches for the "Rich and Famous Gallery" + London + "Lennie Lee" (the article claims he founded it) yielded only[REDACTED] and[REDACTED] echoes. — Athænara ✉ 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    Andy Miah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    I have just re-edited the article, removing a great deal of puffery. I have also explained to the ed. the need for 3rd party sources. DGG 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    Clouds Blur the Rainbow (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • Clouds Blur the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by BabyDweezil, an uncritical supporter of the individuals and groups criticized in this report, which I wrote. The same user, BabyDweezil, has a long history of personal attacks and repeated POV edits that demonstrate a clear conflict of interest. Some of the material being added is simply false, and based on the marginal and frequently distorted writings by members of a political cult similar to (and at one point connected to) the Lyndon LaRouche cult. Among the other pages subject to this type of editing by BabyDweezil are Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party, Social Therapy, International Workers Party. I understand that it is appropriate that critical opinions about the report Clouds Blur the Rainbow be included on its entry page, but what is happening here is wildly POV, unbalanced, and sometimes just false. It is time to consider banning BabyDweezil from editing any pages related to this cult, just as some pro-LaRouche editors have been banned for being unbable to abide by basic Misplaced Pages guidelines.--Cberlet 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Chip, basic Wikicourtesy would dictate that you notify me of this noticeboard posting rather than (or at least in addition to) obliquely canvassing surefire supporters of the action.
    That said, I challenge Cberlet or anyone else to point to anything in the above articles that is "wildly POV, unbalanced, or false." The fact is, these often contentious articles have been collaborative efforts between editors with different viewpoints, and the results have been a relative semblance of balance. It seems, historically, that Cberlet files protests such as this one precisely at those moments when his own demonstrably minority POV on the above subjects ceases to dominate. I won't waste the space here to document the reality of his POV being decidedly a minority one (not to mention likewise demonstrably riddled with bias and unprofessional research methodology) but would be happy to if needed. Nor do the claims of someone who consistently refers to editors with a different opinion than his own minority one as "cult apologists" "totalitarians" and "Orwellian sanitizers" and worse need a response re: "personal attacks."
    The irony of Cberlet's posting this cannot go uncommented upon. Chip Berlet has been for a quarter century a paid propagandist for Political Research Associates, a thoroughly partisan organization that largely devotes itself to issuing attack reports against groups that do not fit its particular view of of the world, be they on the right or in some instances, as with those above, on the left. PRA specializes in labeling and guilt by association (as evidenced above by Berlet's Larouche-baiting, based on a brief relationship Newman had with the long since noxious Larouche 30 years ago). The notion that a paid partisan like Chip Berlet should remain able to run roughshod over countless articles with which he has a true conflict of interest AND attempt to ban(!!) points of view contrary to his own is simply too absurd to comment on beyond simply stating it. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with Chip, or Dennis King or others with clear COI's from being involved, in fact I welcome their input and--them being long-time spooks and all--value the resources they have filed away. Over and out-- BabyDweezil 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    User:BabyDweezil has been indefinitely blocked. Tearlach 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    Both parties in this dispute have COI and this matter should be handled accordingly. Yakuman 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    Transcendental Meditation (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    These articles are being dominated by editors with various connections to the TM organization. Nearly any attempts at NPOVing result in reversion, and critical sources are being relegated to minor articles on specific subtopics so that the main articles are free from criticism.

    Of course, they are all very polite, but that doesn't mean that they aren't simply reverting critical edits with "let's discuss this on the talk page" (where they can then overwhelm us, or delay us indefinitely), or that they aren't gradually removing all critical information, making the critical information so convoluted as to be unreadable, and moving much of the criticism to minor articles on small subtopics. // Philosophus 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    I've looked around a bit more, and found that

    In an ideal situation both members and people with a grudge against the group would be excluded from editing this type of article. However, these seem to be the only people interested, in most cases, in an article on a religious group. Steve Dufour 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    I am very happy to have User:TimidGuy as a contributor to the TM article, as it said on the now-removed expert tag: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." TimidGuy is definitely an expert and has made incredibly good contributions to the article - without any apparent bias. I see no signs that his close association with TM in any way compromises his ability to edit the article. I think he is an excellent editor and an asset to Misplaced Pages. TimidGuy is one of the most civil and cooperative editors I have encountered on Misplaced Pages - with an excellent eye for following NPOV, as well as following all other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I find the accusations made above to be most distasteful and untrue. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Although the Talk pages mentioned here are voluminous, I looked at a few of the comments by User:TimidGuy and they seemed quite fair. In a sense, one is tempted to keep tongue firmly in cheek when reading any lengthy articles about Transcendental Meditation, and unless someone can show an extremely blatant conflict of interest, it's hard to get too worked up about this stuff. (It's not as though we were discussing alleged medical remedies that might not work). Most of the WP readers who take a look at one of these articles will realize they are in the domain of colorful speculation (yogic flying, etc.), and are presumably ready to discount any very specific claims that may be made. The one article I looked through in detail was balanced in terms of criticism of the approach. You could unfortunately go blind reading all the way through the Talk pages, so unless the COI nominator has a smoking gun to offer, I'm tempted to suggest we archive this issue. EdJohnston 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Several of the article talk pages are prime examples of what happens when users confuse encyclopedia article talk pages with free webspace blogs. — Athænara ✉ 06:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    George Deutsch (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    -- as a means of self-promotion (using the term "influential science blogger," among others). Similar edits have been made from

    addresses traceable to Oxford, where Anthis is studying. // 208.255.229.66 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    The recent eds. by Biochemnick to The Scientific Activist are in my opinion not vanity, tho some earlier ones there may have been. the above posting is by an anon ed from a multiple-user account, who has also been revert warring on that page, using a different anon account, 66.177.173.119 , User:DGG 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • 66.177.173.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) apparently believes that
    • Cellularesque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Anthis. 66.* and Cell* have both broken 3RR. — Æ. ✉ 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The article on The Scientific Activist appears legit to me. Nick Anthis's efforts to add himself as a notable alumnus to all his schools will not improve his reputation on Misplaced Pages. I suggest that anyone who follows this noticeboard and observes him violating the WP:3RR ought to report him, because this kind of a pattern isn't good. His activities have begun to draw complaints on his Talk page (some though not all of them justified) and he has been deleting the complaints. For someone who would apparently like to be more famous, that's unwise. He could be getting known for the wrong things. With respect to the edit war on The Scientific Activist, his opponents seem to have done some unreasonable things. So he has been fighting back against his unreasonable opponents (usually anons), breaking many of our rules and drawing blocks in the process. The submitter of this COI complaint, 208.255.229.66, has himself been blocked five times during March. The record of User:Biochemnick (Nick Anthis) is already bad enough that he could be looking at a long-term block if he continues to be so stubborn. This is too bad because someone with his background could be a useful addition to Misplaced Pages in the scientific areas. EdJohnston 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

    Labrador Retriever (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Although they have discontinued attempting to change other people edits directly, they do still fill the talk page with claims that "anti-silver elitists" are oppressing "legitimate" silver breeders, that they have papers saying their dog's registered color is "silver," and so on. Their most recent argument is that the Labrador Retriever Club, which is the labrador parent organization for the American Kennel Club, is just a "club" even though they have continuously tried to use the AKC in their arguments. They have never provided any proof for their claims.

    I probably shouldn't have continued replying to this person, though I did mention COI twice. Sarrandúin 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    Early today, another user,

    I thought this one (probably the same user) had gotten a clue and stopped by now, but no: still active with bombastic and threatening edit summaries. — Æ. ✉ 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    Would this qualify for a checkuser? "Silverlabrador" was blocked indefinitely, and that person has already shown their IP address changes or can be changed often- if this person is the same, would it constitute as evading a block or similar? Sarrandúin 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    It would constitute exactly that: evading a block. — Æ. ✉ 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    Taborah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    This one was in bad shape: a myspace.com link (!) in the first two words (the name of the subject), http instead of[REDACTED] article links, and no references—zip. I cleaned up the obvious and removed the wikify tag. Notability and tone tags remain as they should. If it comes up for deletion again I'll support that in the absence of reliable sources which establish notability. — Athænara ✉ 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    Poweroid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used , but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 , I feel I'm in over my head.

    Possible coi because:

    • poweroid.com redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/poweroid/
    • poweroid.co.uk redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/
    • bestpricecomputers.co.uk is the same company
    • experienced-people.co.uk appears to be run by the same admin
    Update: Poweroid admits below to coi regarding choosing the name. An RfC/N resulted in allowing the username because it predates the prohibition on such names. --Ronz 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    I've removed links from the following articles, all added by Poweroid:

    External links to bestpricecomputers:

    External links to experienced-people:

    I'm guessing there are many more considering how long he's been editing. --Ronz 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    Update: Poweroid appears to have choosen his username after introducing links to poweroid-video-editing.co.uk as 213.235.36.175 (talk · contribs). 213.235.36.175 has only a few edits total, from 6 September 2004 to 18:11, 15 October 2004. This editor introduced links to bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk in the same manner that Poweroid has done. Four minutes after 213.235.36.175's last edit, Poweroid begins editing for the first time in the same articles as 213.235.36.175. --Ronz 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    You're wrong, surprisingly. See Special:Linksearch/bestpricecomputers.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/experienced-people.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/poweroid.com and Special:Linksearch/poweroid.co.uk. MER-C 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Those searches don't appear to work. I just found another bestpricecomputers link in Intranet. --Ronz 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Whoa! Whoa! I'm in the middle of something but give me a few seconds and I'll comment in full. Poweroid 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    OK, first, on the user name: It's not a random word, it's a word that's clearly associated with Best Price Computers Ltd, at bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. In fact, there are thousands of pages in a Google search for that word ALL of which would lead you back to that company site. Poweroid is the only brand that company sells. And nobody can mistake that I'm associated with that company/do work for it. I intentionally use that user name here and I openly log in with that Poweroid name to edit. Have been doing it for years. I don't believe I've ever added a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk.
    I have edited, proofed or otherwise worked on over 50 sites in the last few years some of which are/were owned by that company or by other companies. Those sites include pcnineoneone.com (which has plenty of links from Wikipeddia, many from before I ever joined), graphic.org etc., etc. (I'll try and compile a full list if anyone's interested). I've often taken content from a site I'm familiar with and added it to a Misplaced Pages article with due acknowledgement to the source - whether I ever worked on that source site or not.
    I believe I made a useful contribution yesterday to Web site, with a note in the Talk page prior to attempting further improvements. I notice that Ronz has removed a reference link to the experienced-people site on the article. Whatever s/he believes about the authority of the experienced-people site Yahoo claims that there are almost 3,000 other places that link to it, so obviously there are some, like abcnews.com who link to a particular article there, who think it's worth linking to. I notice also that the content from that source site is still on Web site though the reference was removed. Just as with VoIP. VoIP happens to use an image and content from one of the source sites. I notice that the image is still in use here though the link to the site was removed.
    I've edited probably thousands of articles in Misplaced Pages ranging from hundreds on Indian cities to articles ranging from pregnancy/medical to business management to foodstuffs/recipes, most of which I've found no reason to add links on. I admit I may not have read every single word of the rules here but if it is forbidden to ever quote from a site I've worked on in the past it will reduce my output considerably (as it would cut out a large chunk of topics I am familiar with) but I'm happy to comply. Poweroid 14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, so far I've only removed the links, because they don't meet WP:SOURCE or WP:EL, and some come across as WP:SPAM. I've kept the other content, assuming it can be verified from other sources if necessary. As for the potential coi issues, I'm deferring to this noticeboard. --Ronz 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    i am observer and i don't understand : who is Ronz , i have look the ronz's contribution to[REDACTED] and (always removed) please can you say me what he has realy build? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.11.145.92 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.118.211 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    If you have problems with my edits, take them to the appropriate venue. This discussion concerns the conflict of interest issues with Poweroid's edits. --Ronz 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    A glance at Yahoo's Site Explorer for incoming links to www.experienced-people.co.uk doesn't suggest much merit. Looks to me like one of those non-sites that provide token content, but primarily exist as vehicle for Google ads and affiliate schemes. Tearlach 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    There are about 2,700 links to that site according to your Yahoo listing. I haven't examined them all but the first page itself shows links from sites I'm familiar with, like problogger, and about.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.89.250 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    See my comments above. The issue here is COI. --Ronz 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Poweroid seems not to have added his links normally to be avoided to articles in the past month—am I missing something? — Athænara ✉ 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Just the one that he admits to above. . He's been completely upfront here about his actions, though. It might be useful for him to provide the list of sites that he mentions above. He's not contending that the links are inappropriate. It appears that he often edits as an ip, but not in any way that violates WP:SOCK that I can see, other than maybe to avoid a few spam warnings. Other than that, I think the situation is fine as long as he no longer continues to add such links to articles. --Ronz 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly. But, like I said, I'll put a list together for anyone here who's researching me in relation to this CoI claim. Please tell me how and where I can provide it. Poweroid 11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

    Posted on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names. — Athænara ✉ 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

    Result was allow: policy against company/product names as usernames had not yet been implemented when the user registered.

    In re conflict of interest, links, clients: It would be helpful if someone higher up the administrative chain can answer the user in re a list of clients whose links the user has added to the encyclopedia ("Please tell me how and where I can provide it") if that is the most straightforward way to clear this up. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Comments on the RFCN include that this case is starting to smart of desperation and that WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cascadia suggests something is just not right about the RfC and that it seems you're just looking at ANY (his emphasis) way to deal with a conflict. On your own talk page Shenme has trouble believing the "problem" is at all as serious as presented.

    Yes, let's find a straightforward way to clear this up. Poweroid 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Additionally, he's added links to:

    • poweroid-video-editing.co.uk (18 October 2004)
    • bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk (14 August 2006)

    --Ronz 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages kinda like the type Shenme thought looked perfectly OK (see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/Business_performance_management on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names page). Poweroid 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, but you said yourself that you didn't think you made a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. It turns out you did in August of last year. Also, you've linked to a site that has your username in it, something you should have brought up when this COI was started. --Ronz 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Restatement of Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest policy as it applies here.

    "A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Misplaced Pages, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products… Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest. Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

    1. These include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid by said organizations to edit a Misplaced Pages article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image." (emphasis added.)

    From the introduction at the top of the policy page. — Athænara ✉ 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

    Techniques of Knowledge (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Two contributors Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made a solemn promise during initiation not to reveal these meditation techniques. They say that the article violates WP:NOT for being an instruction manual because they include descriptions of the meditiation techniques that they deem as instructions. RFC has been filed and yielded supportive reactions for inclusions of the descriptions, but Momento keeps reverting. Andries 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, but I have not reverted that article, rather made comments in talk presenting my viewpoint in this matter. So, please be accurate, if you could. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Where did I write that? Where are my comments inaccurate? Andries 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    You also forget to mention that you have edit-warred in this article consistently. Just in the last 100 edits you reverted 7 times. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    No, but you keep on making the same arguments in spite of several reactions on the RFC contradicting your support for exclusion. Andries 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    So what? As long as I have not edited the disputed material, I can make whatever comments that could be useful to the editors that are actively editing it. I have asked at least two of the RfC respondents to attempt to edit that specific section, See: diff and diff≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Your support for removal of well-sourced relevant material is disruptive. Andries 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    If you believe that my comments in talk are disruptive, you can then file a complaint at WP:ANI. My comments are all there in the history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    I think this is the best webpage at the present for this dispute. Andries 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    As you wish. I just find it very peculiar that you believe that engaging other editors in civil discussions, and asking non-involved editors to assist in bridging a content dispute is disruptive. Very peculiar, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Let me give an analogy. When I support removing in the entry George W. Bush the statement that he is the president of the USA and ask other contributors civilly to re-write that statement then it is still disruptive. Andries 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    (resetting ident) While Momento (talk · contribs) and Jossi (talk · contribs) may have a favourable view of the subject, both have been courteous and flexible during my experience there as a third party. Jossi invited me to try and craft a compromise version after I responded to the RFC. I provided my first draft of a suggested compromise to provide a description of the techniques while addressing the WP:NOT concerns, stored in a user subpage to avoid edit warring on the article. Jossi expressed his support for this version. Momento also endorsed the compromise, with a small reservation. I made a minor edit to address that concern. I feel that Momento and Jossi have both shown a willingness to be flexible on this issue. Additionally, Memento even pointed out that while practitioners are prohibited from revealing the techniques, they are not required to stop others from doing so. On a final note, Andries (talk · contribs) has been sanctioned by ArbCom for his behaviour in pushing an "anti-Guru" POV recently. (Please reference here and here.) This should be considered when reviewing complaints by Andries on relevent topics. Vassyana 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    I think there is no good reason to remove sourced material because the article has never violated WP:NOT ("instruction manual") and even never came close to violating WP:NOT. Andries 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. As I said in Talk:Techniques of Knowledge#Comment from outside editors, I think that User:Momento has interpreted WP:NOT far more stringently than is usual, and wanted to reject as "instructions" some text that is nowhere near as instructional as many other articles that have never caused dispute on these grounds. Tearlach 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    This noticeboard is not designed for content disputes. These are better addressed in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    But it does concern here when such disputes might impinge on conflict of interest - in this case, the possibility that a religious/contractual obligation might be influencing some editors' wish to exclude some information. Personally, I don't care either way if some religious group gets naked and worships turnips - but I do care if they try to to hide that information via WP:NOT by falsely hyping the idea that a description is "instructions" on how to do so. Tearlach 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

    70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been editing with a conflict of interest. He has added dozens of links to articles he's written elsewhere and then he's edit-warred over their removal. He's used at least four different IPs in the same range:

    His first edit summary indicates he's the same person as Nicholas Stix. Stix is an "internet columnist" who has occasionally mentioned Wikipeia in his blogs. Except for that first edit he hasn't identified himself as Stix even while fighting over links to his : websites. Despite using variable IPs he has attacked another anon with a variable IP as the "Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster". He's promoted himself, including a long entry to a list of "notable journalists". He's also engaged in serial incivility for which a block may be warranted. For the time being I've asked him to stop adding content about or by himself. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    The serial incivility extends to multiple other interactions; see Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 and the user's talk pages for numerous examples. --lquilter 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

    1.)The anonymous editor says he is being singled out because of his continued political engagement. He also claims:

    a.) His accusers misrepresent Misplaced Pages rules to criticize or redact his edits.
    b.) His accusers misrepresent print publications as "blogs."
    c.) His accusers stalk and censor him and anyone who supports him.

    2.) His connections come from Verizon, so he may have dialup or another setup without static IP addresses.

    3.) His accusers claim he is "self promoting," that he is apparently Nicholas Stix, a veteran freelance writer. They haven't demonstrated that his material, at least some of it, is improper.

    4.) FYI, I have no ties to Stix, nor do I endorse his writing, but some of the accusations laid against him may not mesh with reality. I encourage anyone who wishes to examine this situation to look carefully. Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    At what are we to look carefully? The editor has identified himself as this person. His edits are chiefly promoting links to his self-published materials and websites. It's a COI to link to one's own website, and this editor has done so dozens of times. Furthermore he's engaged in scores of reversions adding the links back. Failing to acknowledge the relationship between subject and writer is not a good faith action.
    Nobody is trying to censor this or any editor. However spamming links across Misplaced Pages is not a useful or acceptable activity. All I've asked is that this editor stop adding content about or by himself. Is that unreasonable? I'd also ask that he be more collegial and less confrontational. Civility is a core policy of Misplaced Pages. -Will Beback · † · 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    Comment: Readers of this board who want to study this case, and may not want to read all the diffs above, might content themselves with a quick scan of User_talk:70.23.199.239 to get the flavor of this editor's communications. This is really, really Nicholas Stix and there's no sock-puppeting issue, this is just his attitude to the world, at least to the other editors on Misplaced Pages. (We're not in the realm of subtle issues). See also his block log at . Unfortunately this seems to be a case of WP:DE. The actions already taken by administrators were not excessive. This COI noticeboard is most effective when there is still a chance to persuade people and to remove misunderstandings. That does not appear to be the case here. The question of whether some of Stix's own articles deserve to be linked in Misplaced Pages is dwarfed by the behavior issues. Stix should by now be concerned about the number of administrators who have independently posted to his User talk with extremely polite language. Does anyone have another idea for how to resolve this? EdJohnston 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    More than conflict of interest is involved—this is an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor. How about Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct? — Athænara ✉ 07:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    Damone (band) – Copyvio, reverted – 11:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    Damone (band) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    There are so many things wrong with the article and with the situation. I sorted through a dozen or more templates and ended up choosing {{primarysources}}, {{copypaste}}, {{inappropriate tone}}, {{inappropriate person}}, and {{Essay-entry}} for starters. — Athænara ✉ 11:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    You forgot the most important thing which allowed me to fix the problems instantly. Placed {{uw-copyright4}} on user's talk page. MER-C 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Great fix. I didn't forget it. I didn't even think of it. — Æ. ✉ 12:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    No sign of our copyvio guys since 17 March, will close by end of the month if this remains to be true. MER-C 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.


    Warnborough College (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Users involved

    The users above (or single user as may be the case) have shown a suspiciously keen interest in making sure Warnborough College's reputation is not harmed on Misplaced Pages.

    Warnborough's user page talks in the first person as a representative of Warnborough College, and the IP 80.229.135.241 resolves to warnb0r0.plus.com (as do IPs 80.229.135.240 through 80.229.135.243). That IP is also shown as having made constructive edits to information about Warnborough College on Warnborough's user page. Indeed, my guess is that this IP has been static since at least Nov 14, 2004 when this user began to leave strongly opinionated comments about education (and never any other subject). To my knowledge, only corporate or educational IPs remain so static.

    Paging through each user's history will reveal a rich tradition of blanking unfavorable comments regarding Warnborough College and engaging in spirited debate (rightly or wrongly) involving Warnborough College's reputation. You will also find numerous warnings on the talk pages for misbehavior on the Warnborough College page.

    In short, I am suggesting that the users above may either be the same person or work together at Warnborough College, creating a strong conflict of interest when editing the article on Warnborough College or any other articles on education as has already been shown. --67.188.0.96 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

     Confirmed User:Warnborough, admits to it on his user page.
     Inconclusive on the IPs - 80.229.135.240/30 - no technical evidence found despite the suggestive RDNS. Google search turns up nothing, site is password protected. Belongs to a UK ISP. MER-C 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    No, not really. MER-C 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    Continued COI edits by user:Warnborough

    I want to be clear that I have no particular interest in Warnborough College, but the initial changes became known to me while watching the "recent changes" page. It is unfortunate that this user who might otherwise have valuable contributions to this article cannot control himself and edit within the Misplaced Pages guidelines and manual of style. --67.188.0.96 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

    I see that he's been blocked for one week due to refactoring other's comments on talk pages. There is more to simple COI issues as I see. At this point, I suggest going above COI notice boards and issuing a request for comment on him instead once he returns to disrupt. --w 07:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

    Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The entire article reads like a promotional booklet with outlandish Superman-type description of the subject, Sisters-of-Charity-type description of his otherwise unnotable organization, multiple links to videos located within one website (youtube.com), etc. Primary editor is a disciple of the subject and an ordained preacher of his religious organization. Please see this page and scroll down to "Hamsacharya dan." //Watchtower Sentinel Tearlach

    The Buck Rogers-style Surya Armor of Light Experience tale was supposed to be lifted from a local tabloid. Where is the evidence of the very existence of the tabloid article? Was it really titled Surya Armor of Light Experience? It was translated from Hindi, who translated it? Who would verify that the translation was correct? Is a tabloid article encyclopedic? Is a person's autobiography an ideal resource for an unbiased Wiki bio? I mean, a person can write in his autobiography that he is God, or that he met Mickey Mouse in the Alpines and he gave him a golden ticket. Can we use those in a Misplaced Pages biography and say, for example, that the person is God with a reference marker at the end leading to an autobiography at the bottom? Is that how we should write an encyclopedia?

    The man's real name is Sidhoji Rao Shitole, who awarded him the three exalted titles Yogiraj, Gurunath and Siddhanath that he now uses in place of his real name? Aside from mythical and deceased-before-his-birth figures where did he really learn his Kriya Yoga? The whole thing is a praise and promo page without a doubt. Primary editor is a disciple and ordained preacher of the subject's org + main reference is the subject's autobiography = bad and completely biased article. If this is not conflict of interest I don't know what is. Would it be possible to strip it into a barebones completely encyclopedic version using only NPOV references as sources? This relatively unknown "guru" is presented in much more glorious light than Buddha or Jesus in their own WP pages. - Watchtower Sentinel YouTube video links (which I removed a few minutes ago). — Athænara ✉ 07:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

    Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) aka TroyVaughn (talk · contribs) aka Terminator III (talk · contribs) aka Hamsacharya_duh (talk · contribs) aka Senior Hamsacharya (talk · contribs) aka Juan dela Cruz (talk · contribs). It's quite clear to me and other users like Sfacets, but not to others who haven't dealt with him extensively. I'm trying to establish a checkuser Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Watchtower_Sentinel, but I'm having trouble because its been more than 30 days since the last sockpuppet, and RFCU seems to have trouble with that. --Hamsacharya dan 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    Beware of the Poisoning the well fallacy. Whatever the user history, I still think the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article needs attention on the grounds cited. Tearlach 20:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    I agree, but there are not other sources on Yogiraj than the one used. We tried to get the article deleted - it failed AfD twice. I've worked through all of January with other nPOV users to make it as objective as possible and maintain its integrity. If you have any constructive comments to make, then please do so - you'll find me more than amenable. However, Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs), if he is the sockpuppet of those listed above, has been almost entirely a disruptive and negative influence on[REDACTED] by anybody's standards. Why do you think those sockpuppets have been repeatedly blocked? --Hamsacharya dan 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    I was led to this article while researching Watchtower Sentinel who appears to be largely responsible for what I consider positive edits to the article Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. In terms of a possible conflict of interest, I wish to point out that while it has been established that Hamsacharya dan is an authorized teacher in Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's organisation, it also appears that he is the sole contact person in charge of media relations for Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and his organisation. At the very least, the linked page shows that both "Dans" share the same phone number.-Vritti 07:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    What a revealing find! Now we are 100% positive of his true motives. No wonder lines such as, "Those who are interested in his teachings may go on to receive initiation into perennial yogic techniques he calls Siddhanath Surya Yoga." exists in the article. That is just flat-out promotional. Should an encyclopedia article be inviting people to receive initiations. Can you please help re-word that line or perhaps the entire paragraph where it can be found?
    Another issue that I am presently focusing on and I believe should be given a closer second look is the use of three spiritual honorofics Yogiraj, Gurunath and Siddhanath instead of the subject's real name, this violates WP standards on biographical articles.
    If you will read through Page_move_and_article_name you will realize that Hamsacharya dan was able to convince one admin that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath should be used instead of the subject's real name by citing seven persons as supposed precedents. But what the good admin failed to realize was that five of those who were cited were duly-ordained monks of world-recognized religious orders. Their names therefore are legitimate spiritual names as real and legal as Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI are real and legal. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath however is not an ordained monk and the spiritual honorifics (mind you they are spiritual honorifics and not spiritual names) that he uses in place of his name are self-given, which imho makes them bogus or at least unfit to be used again and again in an encyclopedic article (e.g. "Siddhanath is this..." "Siddhanath is that...").
    The other two cited were Nostradamus, which is the Latinized version of the actual name of the subject, and Sri Chinmoy, which again is the actual first name of the subject Chinmoy Kumar Ghose preceded by the Sanskrit prefix Sri that simply means Mr. please see Sri. It seems that Hamsacharya dan, the media relations man, has successfully took everyone for a spin. I do not disagree that the article be titled Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath but it should only be mentioned once as an a.k.a. and all proceeding addresses to the subject should be either Sidhoji or Mr. Shitole. This is in accordance with wiki/manual_of_style/biographies/pseudonyms I will write a more indepth version of this in the article's talk page under Page_move_and_article_name. - Watchtower Sentinel 10:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    a) Naming disputes don't belong here.
    b) If what Vritti says is true, then it's clear COI. Tearlach 12:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Pardon me for bringing that one up. It just came out spontaneously. I promise not to mention that issue in this Noticeboard ever again. Now that COI has been confirmed what should be the next step? Thank you for your input. - Watchtower Sentinel 12:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    So just to summarise the evidence:
    1) We have a User:Hamsacharya dan here editing the YGS article.
    2) The Hamsa-yoga site lists a Hamsacharya Dan Kogan with phone number.
    3)The YGS media contact is a Dan Kogan on the same phone number.
    Yep: I view that as adequately confirmed. Tearlach 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    I just found out that an RFC has been filed against User:Hamsacharya dan since 30 April 2006. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Hamsacharya_dan. Since COI has already been established then perhaps we can use it to finally get the verdict for the RFC. - Watchtower Sentinel I just found out that an RFC"

    Which was full of sockpuppets. You'd help most by butting out of editing on this topic. It looks thoroughly clear to me that Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs) is in solid breach of WP:COI. If you want this dealt with, stop fogging the issue with pages of "oh, and he did this as well" whingeing about related gripes. The COI noticeboard has alerted non-involved editors; let them sort it out. Tearlach 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

    Formerthings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Formerthings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- editor adding links to Biblical site formerthings.com. --TedFrank 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    Special:Linksearch/formerthings.com. Reverted all the spam user added. MER-C 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Jarrad Larmand – Deleted – 11:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

    Jarrad Larmand (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Proposed for deletion as non-notable: no newspaper or book hits, handful of Google hits suggesting he's a non-notable student. Tearlach 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    PS Deadline reached - it can be deleted now. Tearlach 10:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.


    David Westerfield (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • David Westerfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm here, because I don't know where else to turn to. In a nutshell this user is simply problematic and his disruption to the David Westerfield article has got to stop. He contributes to no other article. He is constantly wanting edits that favor David Westerfield and his defense. The article has over 20 references even though the case was finished 4 years ago. He's been involved in the article since March 2006. I am constantly in revert wars with him. His new argument now is that this man did not have child pornography even though a jury convicted him on it. He strongly disagrees with it and wants to push that in the article. He wants the pornography section to include "allege" or "apparently" in describing the ages of the females depicted in Westerfield's images. He is never satisfied with the article. Currently I am trying to get the article unprotected. It has been protected 4 times by 4 different administrators. Please somebody intervene and cut his ability to edit the article. For I believe it is the only way for the article to have some peace. Fighting for Justice 06:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    I am constantly in revert wars with him
    For which you were both blocked recently. Unless 196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) is David Westerfield or someone with a personal/business involvement, biased editing doesn't come under conflict of interest. Tearlach 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    I strongly suspect that he IS David Westerfield's lawyer or a knows one of them. He certainly talks like one, is able to spout out dates of testimony and who made them. He can recite the numbers of the state exhibits. He can also be a relative of Westerfields', although he denies it and I'm sure he's fully aware that he won't edit the article should he admit such a thing. He is on a crusade to vindicate this guy and is using the article as a soapbox. If it doesn't fall under conflict of interest, then what does it fall under? It's gotta fall under something. Look at his contributions it is all about David Westerfield. He is here to abuse[REDACTED] not help it. If he wanted to help[REDACTED] he would contribute to other articles. Something has to be done with him. He has monopolized the article for a full year now, and all indications show he is going continue. This is highly unfair to people who do genuinely want to contribute. Fighting for Justice 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely, South African IP. However, that there is no RDNS sends up a red flag, which prevents this from being completely unrelated. MER-C 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    That's very strange. Because I put the IP in here and the search indicates the IP comes from Los Angeles. Fighting for Justice 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    It depends which whois you ask (I think it's one of those funny addresses that throw the system because they were allocated before the regional registries were formed). But that's by-the-by: "strongly suspect" isn't proof, and the problem with this article isn't provable COI but the edit war and the lack of emotionally uninvolved editors to enforce NPOV (hint: active hostility toward DW is just as much bias as active sympathy). Tearlach 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, just what do you suggest should be done with 196.15.168.40? He's hijacked the article for a full year now, with no signs that he is going to stop. I would gladly leave the article alone so long as he does too. I guarantee if I left the article 196 would turn it into a sympathy article for DW. Fighting for Justice 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    On second thoughts, the IP is likely to be an Open proxy. Listed on WP:OP. MER-C 06:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    Well, does that mean he can be blocked? He's been doing nothing but abusing wikipedia. Using it to defend a convicted child-murderer. Fighting for Justice 06:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    There are three (longer) unresolved discussions of the same problem in WP:BLP/N archives 2, 4 and 7. — Athænara ✉ 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    I understand that, but what do you want me to do? 196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) continually believes he is right and everyone is wrong. He's abused[REDACTED] because it's been a soapbox for him. He's always rehashing the same arguments. Fighting for Justice 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for five years as an open proxy. MER-C 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

    So how is the blighter still posting? Tearlach 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    The post was made in the early morning. The block occurred in the afternoon. Fighting for Justice 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

    Archimedes Plutonium (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Throughout the current AfD on the Archimedes Plutonium article, a user, Superdeterminism, who most feel is Archimedes Plutonium himself, has been editing the AfD, the article, and the article's talk page. What are the guidelines for a BLP being edited (owned) by the LP? Here, in the AfD, referring to the Misplaced Pages article, he wrote "on my page I refer ..." Somehow, this just doesn't seem appropriate. Thanks for your input. Keesiewonder 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: WP:COI doesn't expressly forbid a person from participating in this regard, but they're strongly encouraged to be very cautious. The diff you linked to seems to corroborate the claim that he is indeed the subject of the article, but it also expresses a reasonable concern on his part. It looks like the AfD will result in a Keep, which is good (IMO, Misplaced Pages gets stronger every time a biography is determined to be keepable,) but he should be encouraged to take a step back and let others do the editing for him. WP:AUTO is a suitable guideline to cite from here, too. -/- Warren 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks; where's the best place to request that someone other than me provide this strong encouragement to this user and encourage them to take a step back and stop editing their (auto)biography? As best I can tell, several admins are aware of what is taking place, but not warning the user in ways that are proving to be effective. Keesiewonder 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    Tom Terry (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Are his edits problematic? Do they conflict with WP:COI if he is the author? Vassyana 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, and yes. The book pages needed work: they neded removal of promotional links, and all the categories were referred to the author rather than the books. There's also a deal of subjective stuff: "The stories presented in the collection often take sharp, disturbing turns not normally found in modern religious fiction". Sez who? The Tom Terry article itself completely lacks third-party sources. Tearlach 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

    Faisal Gill (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A number of editors, most notably Vijayante (talk · contribs) and TimidGuy (talk · contribs), are actively involved in the Maharishi's TM movement, advocates for it, and are aggressively challenging all critical information. Vijayante has been blocked twice for 3RR for deleting critical material without discussion, and TimidGuy now claims that the controversy over the Maharishi's relationship to his guru and his teachings is "an invented controversy", trying to "find a reason to deligitimize the Maharishi", and that Maharishi and his teaching is perceived by most people as "secular and scientific" (not religious), that the critical book is not "neutral" and not "scholarly", and even though two different versions have been published by different publishers, and has been independently reviewed, that the book can't be cited because it is "self published". All this over a simple proposal that the article say: "There reportedly has been some controversy over alleged differences between the teachings and practices of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, and his guru's and lineage's support for Maharishi's subsequent teaching role , an issue complicated by an unresolved dispute among multiple lineages all claiming to be Brahmanananda Saraswati's successor 21, . The Maharishi reportedly views himself as the only the "bulb through which the spiritual electrical current from Gurudev shines in radiating light on all".

    Below are some examples of the apparently COI based explanations from TimidGuy for why there is no noteworthy controversy, the Maharishi isn't seen as a guru, TM has no religious elements, sources must be academic and neutral, etc:

    I don't understand how this is relevant to the article. What's the point of saying what Maharishi isn't (or rather what people think he isn't)? Shouldn't the article focus on who he is and what he's done? Are you saying that because Guru Dev taught three methods, so should Maharishi? IF it could be documented that Maharishi's teachings are inconsistent with Guru Dev's, what point would that be making about Maharishi and why is it relevant to the article? To my mind, it's enough that Maharishi was with Guru Dev for a number of years and imbibed a deep understanding of the Vedic tradition. And he's now introducing facets of Vedic knowledge to a wider audience.
    I've been at Maharishi University of Management for decades, and I've never had the sense that Maharishi's teachings are explicitly Guru Dev's teachings. It goes deeper than that. It's more on the level of Being. Guru Dev was the embodiment of that Being. Maharishi appreciated that essence. He is re-enlivening facets of the Vedic tradition in that context. The focus is on transcending, on experience of transcendence, and on verifying those experiences -- through knowledge about what's happening and through scientific research. It's the essence of simplicity. We don't get bogged down in worrying about this or that tradition or lineage of path or method. We appreciate that there are many different paths, probably equally valid. Maharishi has given us a simple technique that uses the natural tendency of the mind. It has the virtue of being effortless. And he's complemented that by introducing other aspects of the Vedic tradition, such as Ayurveda, Gandharva Veda, and Sthapatya Veda. But it's all for the same simple purpose of transcending and experiencing pure consciousness. I think you'd need to demonstrate that the Mason biography was published by a reputable publisher. It seems like a collection of hearsay. No one that I know thinks of Charlie Lutes as an authority on the Vedic tradition or on Guru Dev.
    One thing that does characterize Maharishi is that he’s put his meditation on the objective platform of science. Disciples can argue all they want about whose guru is the best or most legitimate, but the science shows that Transcendental Meditation, whatever its origin, has very specific effects. And that long-term practice leads to a state of subjective experience and neurophysiological markers that are very different from the norm.
    Ironically, I've been feeling that you're the one who's improperly framing things (which is why I referenced your POV). You keep casting Maharishi into a guru role and focusing on lineages, etc. But Maharishi is simply a person who was a disciple of Guru Dev and who subsequently began teaching a form of meditation that he said would have many immediate practical benefits, as well as a long-term cumulative effect. And research and the experience of people who take up the practive have verified his claims. He has subsequently sought to revive various facets of the Vedic literature and, in general, to re-enliven the Vedic tradition. He didn't represent himself as a guru, didn't ask people to be his followers, didn't claim any authority based on lineages, etc. In a sense, Guru Dev was his inspiration. The only people who worry about this are the people with other gurus. They have to find a reason to delegitimize Maharishi. This is an invented controversy by a tiny group of people. It's not notable and doesn't belong in the article. And Mason's book is self-publshed and not scholarly.
    I just can't accept Mason. He's not a trained scholar, his book isn't scholarly. If you check this page {http://evolutionpublishinguk.com/} you'll see that the publisher has published one book -- Mason's. That's what tells you it's self-published. I know many people who have self-published books. It's standard practice to create a publisher. Self-published books can be listed on Amazon. They can even find a distributor. One reason that this is important is that scholars generally try to be objective. Mason isn't neutral -- he's opposed to TM. You can check his web site and find a link to the most critical site that opposes TM. A historian and biographer doesn't usually approach his subject with an agenda. If this is such a major controversy among those who revere the Vedic tradition, then why can't you cite books from university presses? Or articles in scholarly journals? Note that WP:ATT suggests that the standard be books published by university presses. I think the next step would be to an example of a specific thing that Maharishi has said or taught and then produce a scholarly source that says that that's wrong. (Web sites won't cut it. Mason won't cut it.) Then we can discuss it.
    Of course I'm operating from my own assumptions. But I believe I'm also characterizing the way Maharishi has presented his teaching and the way that he's perceived by most people. He's presented it as secular and scientific, and most people accept it that way. Most of the media reports present it that way. It's exclusively presented that way in the scientific literature. If there is a body of scholarship that disputes Maharishi's approach, I'm unfamiliar with it. If there is, then it can be referenced in the article. But for the most part, I believe the article should represent the way that Maharishi is viewed by most people. If you and some others believe he's violated the integrity of the Santana Dharma tradition, it's your point of view. You'll need to support it, and you'll need to show that it's notable. So far you've only referenced a book by a non-scholar and various web sites. On the other hand, there's a body of 700 scientific studies spanning nearly 40 years. Why should one book and a few partisan web sites define Maharishi and not the 700 studies on his form of meditation and the numerous books that have presented his approach, such as Dr. Schneider's recent book on Maharishi's approach to health?
    I finally gave up and responded: The issue of whether MMY is a seen as religious and/or spiritual leader, or just a scientific figure, does NOT have to be proven to be cited in Misplaced Pages, we are simply to present the information as it is. All that has to be shown to illuminate the controvery is that the issue is reasonably controversial, which there is prima facia evidence it is. And there is no proof provided that someone who used to be widely known as the Beatle's guru is nowadays seen by most as a scientific figure! I do NOT need an academic study or a proven neutral source, as TimidGuy claims, merely an attributable, published source for that assertion. Nor are public figures permitted to simply self-define themselves without futher consideration. Since TimidGuy has chosen to consistently adopt a position rigidly denying this controversy is even relevant despite good faith compromises, reams of evidence, other Misplaced Pages articles, and even court cases to the contrary, in obvious syncronicity with his own personal beliefs and the position taken by his organization, I doubt any sources would satisfy him, I have done what I can and I will pursue available options in due time. If it gets to Arbcom, I seriously doubt they will adopt the position TimidGuy has taken that there is no significant evidence supporting a controversy over the religious elements in MMY's life and teaching, that MMY is most widely seen as scientist, and will take into consideration his involvement in said organization. Sorry it has to come to this, TimidGuy, but when faced with rigid, unsound positions after repeated attempts to collaborate, NPOV remains not negotiable, and I'll take my case elsewhere. --Dseer 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi"

    Please advise me on how to deal with apparent COI editing when the majority of current editors are associated with TM and involvement affects their editing of critical information. --Dseer 06:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    I thought we were having a useful discussion. Sorry to see your frustration. From my perspective, I'm not rigidly denying there's a controversy. I'm asking for evidence for it. So far all that's been cited is what is apparently a self-published book by someone whose credentials as an expert on the Vedic tradition aren't evident and various web sites. If this is a notable controversy, then there are likely reputable sources, such as the Journal of Vedic Studies, that have discussed it. If some facet of Maharishi's teaching has been criticized by a noted expert in the Vedic tradition, then that could be referenced in the article. And it should be weighted relative to the overall view of him presented in the body of scholarly and popular literature. TimidGuy 11:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic